The Velvet Glove and Sparrow II missiles; A Beginners Guide To Post-War Bomber Interception Tactics

Don't forget to like the video and subscribe to my channel!
Support me on Patreon - / polyusstudios
Follow me on Facebook for all the latest updates - / polyusstudios
The Velvet Glove was a semi-active guided missile system developed by the Canadian Armament Research and Development Establishment. It's successor, the Sparrow II was developed by Canadair in association with the US Air Force. This is the story of the development of the missiles in the context of their contemporary weapons systems.
Music:
Denmark - Portland Cello Project
Aircraft mentioned:
Vampire F.3
CL-13 Sabre
CF-100 Canuck
CF-101 Voodoo
CF-105 Arrow
CF-188 Hornet
Tu-4 Bull
Tu-95 Bear
Research Sources:
www.flightglobal.com/FlightPD... www.globalsecurity.org/milita...
www.intelligencer.ca/2017/08/0...
www.gutenberg.us/articles/velv...
sites.google.com/site/canadai... books.google.ca/books?id=ydXR...
www.designation-systems.net/du...
0:00 Introduction
1:00 NORAD and continental defense
3:09 Gun approach
5:20 Rocket pod approach
7:42 Nuclear option
8:23 Interception Tactics
11:44 Guided missile approach
14:25 Velvet Glove missile development
19:18 Sparrow missile development
21:51 Arming Canada’s future fighters
24:55 Conclusion
#PolyusStudios #CanadianAerospace #Velvet Glove

[@saml7610]

Wow, these videos are great! Very well researched, good pacing, no silly distractions, good footage and info slides, and you're bringing less known history into the light. I don't know that much about Canadian military history, but these videos have me much more interested in it all of a sudden.

[@AuclzFTW]

@@polyus_studios keep uploading :) im addicted

[@JohnDoe-yq9ml]

Yes agreed

[@glynnross4499]

Can't wait to share this video with my father, he worked on the Velvet Glove

[@glynnross4499]

@@polyus_studios My father had a chance to watch your video today, in his words it was "absolutely amazing". Thank you.

[@paintnamer6403]

@6:17 The good old days when you could fire a CF- 100 rocket pod in your garage.

[@abrahkadabra9501]

I never knew (the late) Gerald Bull was linked with the Velvet Glove missile program. Canada had such talented people back in the 1950s and '60s and demonstrated it could go toe to toe technologically with the major powers even back then. For such a small player in the world we can be pretty awesome when we want to.

[@michaeloboyle8798]

@@polyus_studios You had Gerald Bull and Saddam Hussein, in the US, we have Dennis Rodman and Kim Jong UN.

[@blech71]

As someone in the RDT&E for Air & Weapons I am thoroughly impressed with the quality content that is this channel. Subbed!

[@Meowface.]

I've been binge watching these Can't believe they don't have more views, they're so well made and entertaining

[@abchaplin]

In 1989, when I was training as an Instructor-in-Gunnery at the Air Defence Artillery School at Chatham, NB, we used that cut-away of the Velvet Glove missile at 15:32 for the study missile designs. The Royal Canadian Artillery School at Gagetown may still use it.

[@abchaplin]

Sorry, none. I would suggest that you contact the school.

[@abchaplin]

I have sent a message to the school through its Facebook page asking them if they still have it. I will post a response here if I get one.

[@kevdupuis]

If I remember correctly the Canadian Aviation museum in Trenton also had a Velvet Glove on display.

[@woltews]

I joined in 1989 FN C1 and all

[@Meowface.]

@@abchaplin did you get a response from the school?

[@thecraziestcanuck]

Once again another great upload.......👍

[@Colinpark]

Excellent video, good tempo for the speaking part, nice music choice, all round great.

[@TheMechanator]

The narrator sounds just like Ed Norton sometimes. I was expecting a Fight Club reference any second. Good pacing and clear speech even for those of us with hearing loss. Bravo Canadian Air Force!

[@mafmaf6417]

I think one issue with the Arrow was the cancellation of the Velvet Glove and Sparrow II. The Arrow would have to be armed with the Falcon and Geenie. I think eventually the Sparrow could have been adapted, and Sidewinder, but that would have ment a new fire control system and a new weapons pod, which ment another Mk and more money, but we gave up in the way of our eronotical industry was worse.

[@RedXlV]

Thing is, the Arrow's weapons pod was removable. While the original intention was to speed up the turn-around time when it landed and rearmed, had it entered service this would've had the side benefit of making it modular. Meaning that it should've been very easy to adapt to new weapons, so long as they weren't physically too long to fit in the bay. Also, I imagine that adding underwing hardpoints for Sidewinders should've also been possible.

[@michaelpryor2981]

Thanks, info on wiki was scarce so this video is awesome

[@jean-marcperreault8518]

Merci BRAD !..Pour m"être a notre disposition ton vidéo , il vas m'être tres utile a mon project maquette d''AVRO CANADA .. !.....Jmarc

[@ericferguson9989]

Gerald Bull was part of the CARDE programme and went on to work on long range artillery, including sabot rounds used on USN 5 inch deck guns. He fell into disfavor after he helped South Africa develop the GC45 (Later G45) artilliary system due to the association with the Appartheid Regime. He went on to help Sadam Hussein develop his super cannon, but was asassinated by the Mossad.

[@JK-rv9tp]

Great video! The simple fact about all this development in the 50s was that the fully active fire and forget missile had to wait for the Integrated Circuit and follow-on Microprocessor revolution to occur first. It was simply impossible to pack all the computing power into that small a package with the solid state surface mount electronics of the late 50s. The first fully active missile was Phoenix in the 70s, quite large, and the first fully active with the Sparrow II's and VG's planned envelope was AMRAAM, all the way into the early 90s. A fully active missile in the 50s would have been the size of a telephone pole. I'm convinced the Arrow program was mainly doomed by the money pits of Astra and Sparrow II, which it had no control over, being RCAF projects. I used to work with ex Avro employees and they saw it that way at the time. Had it gone with the Hughes/Falcon system from the start, the program cost would have been less than half, and it would likely have gone into production.

[@intercommerce]

Interesting and previously-unheard perspective....

[@gavinparmar1316]

@@polyus_studios Another thing people forget is that the Arrow Prototype was already a fairly heavy aircraft. The Iroquois Engine was already barely powerful enough for a fully fueled aircraft loaded with Velvet Glove/Sparrow 2 Missiles and the cannons along with an unfinished fire control system. Add a more powerful/advanced Fire Control system, the Falcon Missile and additional navigation upgrades and all the sudden you no longer have a Mach 2.0 Interceptor. Meanwhile its range would be barely enough to fly from Toronto to St Johns, NFLD. While all of us Canadians marvel at the Arrow, it just wasn't the right plane by the time 1960s came around.

[@Chilly_Billy]

@@gavinparmar1316, it's quite refreshing to hear this balanced discussion. As an American who is also an aviation enthusiast, it has always been rather annoying in how so many of our northern brethren blame the U.S. for the failure of the Arrow. It was an impressive (and beautiful) a/c in some ways but not the best interceptor available to Canada. It's a shame Canada didn't get the F-106 Delta Dart instead of the F-101 Voodoo. Not only would you have gotten a better interceptor but also a capable (for its day) fighter. Many an F-4 Phantom crew learned the hard way dogfighting The Six that it was not to be trifled with in close combat.

[@richardvernon317]

Fully active Radar homing was in a missile in 1960. It was called BOMARC!!! CIM-10A used pulse homing. CIM-10B used Pulse Doppler homing.

[@blowinkk9396]

Your videos should have a lot more views!

[@lindsaywakefield3558]

Excellent Documentary Mr.Gordanier!

[@intercommerce]

Keep these great vids coming!

[@mattrika4874]

Excellent! Congratulations on a well produced, well narrated and fascinating video.

[@dragonsword7370]

Good job on the video! Velvet Glove is A really Metal name for an air to air missile system!

[@raynus1160]

Excellent presentation. Bravo.

[@MisteriosGloriosos922]

Amazing footage!!!

[@dakohli]

Very nice video. Just one point, the first IR Missle System to enter Canadian Service was not the Falcon, but rather the Sidewinder on the F2H-3 Banshee's of the RCN at the end of 1959 just before the adoption of the CF101 and it's Falcon Missle.

[@dakohli]

@@polyus_studios It makes for a great trivia question. The Airforce guys always forget about the Fleet Air Arm.

[@petesheppard1709]

@@polyus_studios Was the 'Winder not used on the CF-5?

[@robertl6196]

Great presentation, m8. Just found your channel, and have been binge watching.

[@richardsawyer5428]

Another excellent video.

[@jaybee9269]

Very well done! I’d enjoy an episode dedicated to Dr. Gerald Bull.

[@marks_sparks1]

He has done an excellent episode on Bull & the Supergun

[@dazaspc]

Wow I am surprised that the Air to Air Nukes were still in service in the 1980's. I always thought that it was the best implementation of a nuke as there was very little fallout from contaminated blast debris.

[@paulflak2823]

we got rid of them in 1988

[@malakiblunt]

excellent work

[@mycroft1905]

Excellent doco.

[@Bikerbob59]

Great Video. Thanks! I have subbed.

[@ronjon7942]

Nice work

[@herringchoker01]

Great to see coverage of some mostly-overlooked Canadian projects that were really significant. I'm passing this link along to a relative, who designed the High-Low gun breech and sabots used for model testing. He says the point of that system was to reduce the rapid high pressure rise in the breech when the propellant ignited to something more gradual that would accelerate the sabot and model instead of destroying them. FWIW, the sabot and model we used to have were larger than the one shown in the video - built for a bored-out 5.5 howitzer barrel. (That model and sabot are now in the RCAF museum in Trenton). Models were fired down range through a series of cardboard screens equipped with wire grids connected back to a decade-counter chronograph setup. That allowed measuring velocity of the model very accurately over the duration of the flight. The holes in the cardboard showed the attitude of the model as it passed through - was it flying straight or wobbling in some way? I believe Gerry Bull was responsible for having that range built. Only suggestion I have is that your announcer learn to pronounce the E in CARDE. Rhymes with "hardy".

[@muzmason3064]

Very well made and presented I am more intelligent than before I watched thank you 👍

[@michaeldenesyk3195]

Correction: The RCN Banshee was the first Canadian MIlitary aircraft to have a guided missile capability. The AIM-9 Sidewinder. Also,, the CF-188 Hornet has the AIM-120 AMRAAM.

[@raynus1160]

As a deviation from aircraft and missiles, a feature on Gerald Bull/HARP would be fascinating.

[@batman1169]

👍 yes. I went down a rabbit hole 🕳 🐇looking at Gerald Bull rise to ultimate death 💀. Great story.

[@michaelclayton632]

Very interesting, well made documentary. Why not create one on the CRV-7 made by Bristol? I heard a story that RCAF aircraft were participating in an exercise in the States and used the missles on a target in the desert. We were accused of using live warheads when we weren't. So the Americans watched us load up and we went out and they blew the living bejesus out of another target due to the very high velocity of the rocket. Accurate too. Apparently, the Americans wanted them but couldn't get them due to the Buy American Policy.

[@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs]

Innovative rocket system Mighty Mouse. This folding fin system is a Derivative of the German WW2 R4M “Orkan”. There was even a radar fire control system in development for it.

[@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs]

Polyus Studios The unique feature of the 55mm R4M was that they were folding fin and was slightly spin stabilised. I agree that the US 3.5 inch rocket was available earlier (for anti sub use) but did not have the folding fin feature. Folding fins allowed much more compact low drag carriage and lower dispersion. The Russians actually deployed such rockets years ahead of the British, Americans and Germans with their RS-82 and RS-132 rockets. They in fact advised the British on developing their RP-3 60 pound rocket projectile. Early war German attempts centered on finless spin stabilised rocket projectile fire from a tube with a revolver magazine. They were unhappy with the accuracy. The Germans having been exposed to Russian rockets belatedly copied (they look the same) them but with one difference, as they were unhappy with the accuracy of the rockets they added 22 SHL 2 cluster hollow charge bomblets. The R4M was suited to attacking bombers.

[@0623kaboom]

whats funny is the velvet glove was the 60's version of the amram ... even went to school with a lady who's dad worked on the velvet glove missile ...

[@thetreblerebel]

Canada was the frontline in the 50s before ICBMs were the weapon of choice that most likely would be used if Russia attacked. But before that, it was Russian bombers

[@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs]

Beam riding is very resistant to jamming. The missiles rear antenna is sensitive only to the rear.

[@WilliamJones-Halibut-vq1fs]

Polyus Studios Agreed though it’s also Depends on the size of the transmitting antenna. Granted antenna size is limited on a fighter but not so much an issue in a SAM. The British Fireflash AAM missile was beam riding. I believe beam riding is good for about 1-1.5 km or so. A big issue is ionising gas in the exhaust which blocks the beam. The ideal is to use the same antenna to lock on the target as is used to form the beam to eliminate alignment problems. Today beam riding is mainly laser based and anti tank. Many early allied guided missiles failed because of ionised exhaust gas. It’s one reason the more experienced Germans chose liquid propellants or propellants and frequencies carefully. Very high quality narration. Absolutely to notch style and pronunciation.

[@jimsvideos7201]

Falcon gets slagged but it was _meant_ for the F-102 and was launched in competitions from other aircraft. Also anyone who knows what a shear wafer is will openly envy the umbilical on Sparrow II.

[@yeriaf]

we called it at CARDE The Woolly Mit.

[@kingdomofvinland8827]

I think beamriders sounds like a cool squadron name

[@viper29ca]

The Sparrow has pretty much been replaced by the AMRAAM. Not sure if we even deploy and train with the Sparrow anymore

[@canuckloyalist4681]

Not Picton, but Point Petre...also the same spot where the AVRO Arrow models were fired over Lake Ontario.

[@canuckloyalist4681]

@@polyus_studios If I was a betting man I would put a Buffalo nickel on them flying out of CFB Trenton. The small airstrip at Picton wouldn't be fighter aircraft friendly...short quote from wikipedia supports this- "In 1952 ground-launched testing started at the Picton Range, a small test site set up outside Picton, Ontario, near the RCAF base at Trenton, Ontario. Air-launches from a CF-100 started in 1954, with the aircraft flying from Trenton to fire over Picton. The site was later used to launch models of the Arrow for aerodynamics testing. Testing of the Velvet Glove then moved to an operational setting at Cold Lake, Alberta." They must have fired a fair number of them off there, some were found during the water search for the Arrow models.

[@palmirocampagna]

@@polyus_studios In fact there were several ground to air launches of various versions of the Glove prototypes from Pt. Petre. See my latest book on the Arrow for information.

[@palmirocampagna]

@@canuckloyalist4681 Details and references for the ground to air launches at Petre are in my book, The Avro Arrow: For the Record. The latest model found is in fact a Delta Test prototype of the Glove, one of 3 launched at Petre. It is not an Arrow model. At about the 8:26 mark in the documentary, Gerald Bull Supergun (also on youtube), you will see the launch of one of these delta test vehicles.

[@paulflak2823]

Any thought of doing a series on the CH-113 Labrador or the CF-5 or any of the aircraft used on the HMCS Bonaventure?

[@paulflak2823]

Most of the equipment that was bought by the Cdn Forces had to be modified to meet the Canadian requirements, based on air temp, extended operational times, and extreme weather changes. My back ground was in the Army, and I did time with the Museums of the Military in Calgary. I had unbelievable access to things that will make you drool. What to chat let me know,

[@marks_sparks1]

Polyus has an episode on the Banshee Sqns and Sidewinder used on Bonaventure

[@Scott11078]

There was more to the Genie missiles and other nuclear tipped ones. Actual destruction of bombers was a secondary. I don't remember how Russian nukes were built but the radiation release from the missile would render all the bombs that were carried in the bombers worthless. Also I've always wondered why airborne radars in multi crew fighters couldn't guide multiple sparrows in a similar fashion warships guided multiple Standard series via time sharing.

[@paulflak2823]

Still remember the day I was assign to escort the last Genie Nuclear missiles for disposal in the USA in 1988. Always giggle when I hear this kids say we never had the bomb.

[@avroarchitect1793]

You should be more concered actually. Because that means the schools are teaching lies.

[@paulflak2823]

I actually taught a Vet Affairs approved social studies class for grade 1 to 12 in the 90's. It was terminated because we completely re wrote their ideas on Canadian history with factual information not the USA influenced crap.

[@paulflak2823]

I had some pictures of the batteries, in the museum I worked in, mostly taken from RCAF Station North Bay and RCAF Station La Macaza, Quebec. If you go to the later now closed air base you can still see the coffin launch bays, although heavy over grown.

[@clorophil1310]

God, the guys at 7:57 look terrified. Were people really used to test the effects of nuclear weapons?

[@paulflak2823]

Canadian Army personnel were sent to the test ranges in the USA, in the 1950's and ordered to dig in prior to a above ground detonation to test the effects on them and their vehicles, just like the USA and USSR did,

[@Fabrizio_Ruffo]

I love the idea of the genie. The enemy has sent nuclear bombers... nuke them first. I miss that kind of blunt thinking. It wasn't always efficient or even effective, but it got shit done.

[@slartybartfast6868]

Well innovative in their approach to many systems, it seems like Canada keeps canceling projects. doesn't seem to efficient to me. You plan, design and cancel adopting an American design. over and over again.

[@petesheppard1709]

Outstanding video, though poignant...all that talent and effort, just a bit ahead of the available tech.

[@jerryjencik3879]

Soviets had no intention or desire to attack the United States, all they wanted was equilibrium of power. Usa had nuclear weapons stationed in Western Europe which could hit Moscow in a few minutes. Russians were in the great disadvantage thats why they wanted to place their nuclear missiles in Cuba.

[@simonl7784]

0:08 Nukuler ?!? really? just like Homer Simpson lol Nuclear is derived from the word nucleus , NOT Nukulus

[@simonl7784]

@@polyus_studios You make exceptional videos of great quality, I just find it humorous that you would make this particular mistake.. Don't take offense buddy

[@simonl7784]

@@polyus_studios But Homer is Awesome.. Cheers , keep up the great work

[@justinbelshe]

NUCULAR??? Damn it, man! So much good information, but that mispronunciation is so jarring that I cringe as I watch.

[@justinbelshe]

@Scumfuck McDoucheface Your screen name made me smile.

[@petesheppard1709]

Makes him sound like a Yank...I are one myself... :p

[@Blowinshiddup]

Why the frig does everyone say "Nucular"?!?

[@alanroberts4060]

Don't like the background music, otherwise interesting.

[@BobSmith-uu5kj]

Stop saying nucular pls. It’s nuclear.

[@mdesm2005]

why are you "thankful" that the Genie was never used? How about the alternatives you mention? How to do you "feel" about them, and why? Remove that gratuitous comment.

[@peekaboopeekaboo1165]

Another YT channel inflicted with anti Russian propaganda. Edit: You could've done much better without the bashing.

[@peekaboopeekaboo1165]

@@polyus_studios By describing it as "Soviet aggression" --- against Canada?

[@peekaboopeekaboo1165]

@@polyus_studios But there weren't any Soviet "aggression" against/ towards Canada during the Cold War.

[@peekaboopeekaboo1165]

@@polyus_studios Probing is not considered an act of aggression.

[@peekaboopeekaboo1165]

@@martkbanjoboy8853 What did the Russians do to Canada that constitute an act of "aggression" (ie. Polyus Studios claim of "Soviet aggression")

[@FallenPhoenix86]

@@peekaboopeekaboo1165 There is only one reason why you would want to probe/test a nations air defense capabilities... and that is to learn what they are because you would like to know how to defeat them. There was no propaganda of any kind, just a matter of fact account of what happened and why. If history upsets your delicate little feelings then too bad... the Cold War happened... deal with it...

[@MrLulzmaker]

Thanks, info on wiki was scarce so this video is awesome